One of three lenses. Which would you take?

Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
The Canon 100 - 400L push and pull zoom, with IS @ £1100.00.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenstech/canon/100400f4556lisusm.html

or

The Sigma 50 - 500mm, all the trimmings, EX, DG, HSM etc @ £700.00.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenstech/sigma/50500f463exdg.html

The sigma is longer, lighter and less conspicuous than the Canon but the canon oozzes class but is another £400.00 on top and is seriously heavy.

or

Tamron 200 - 500mm DGii etc @ £639.00

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenstech/tamron/200500.html

has had great reviews however, looks cheap and sounds slow but as I say the reviews are favourable.

In reference to IS, I think that in sport it needs to be turned off to rattle out the shots in burst mode does it not?

Ignore the fact that its an L vs something else just go on spec, range and price and the fact that both warrant a tripod or monopod.

Just a straw poll to see how others think really.

Diego.
 
Well...the Canon is on my list so I'm biased. But if you go for that you sjould be able to find it for less than £1,100.

regards
 
Not done any motorsport or tried these lenses but I would have thought to get a nice OOF background you would probably be using these lenses pretty much wide open which may showup the Sigma and Tamron. Also to get the the usual blurred wheels effect then the IS should allow you to use the necessary lower shutter speeds when using handheld but it may reduce the burst rate you can achieve.

My money would definately go for the Canon but look to see what Kelso and Onestop can do in terms of pricing.

I'm sure some of the motorsport experts will be along soon to give you some real advice.
 
Sorry - not used any of these, but from what I've heard it would have to be the Canon. It's reckoned to be a very sharp lens, the range is good and the IS could be really useful if you can't use a tripod.

It is a fair chunk of lens, but actually quite a bit lighter than the 'Bigma' - 1380g compared with 1842g. ;)

Another reason for the Canon is that you will generally get most of your money back if ever you decide to sell. It's unfair but third-party lenses don't seem to hold their value as well.
 
Have got a 100-400 and pretty much all my pics have been taken with it (including the Maria Sharapova ones), the IS doesnt have to be off unless you use it on a tripod, and i rarely use one of them ! Given the choice again i would definitely buy the Canon again ! :) only thing that would be better, in my eyes anyway, would be a big prime lens !
 
The Bigma is supposed to be great if you get a good copy but I'd have to go with the others and say the Canon, superb lens, very flexible and delivers great results, sorry ;)
 
Another vote for the Canon 100-400L. I'd definitely buy mine again. The zoom range is so flexible and the IS means you really can get away with hand holding at speeds you couldn't without it. Produces really nice bokeh too.
 
but but...it's white??
 
Save up the extra £££'s and go for the Canon - You'll only regret it if you don't.

silkstone said:
It is a fair chunk of lens, but actually quite a bit lighter than the 'Bigma' - 1380g compared with 1842g. ;)
Yup - The Bigma is quite a lot heavier than the 100-400L IS
 
Back
Top